The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1887-07-29
NUMBER 6
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
THE MINNESOTA STATE RAILROAD
COMMISSIONERS RENDER A
DECISION.
Which Demands that the O., St. P, n &
0. 3. 3. Change Their Duluth
and Mankato Schedule
To Conform to the State Law In
Shipment of Freight.
Both sides of the Controversy Fully
Set Forth.

Il oHlpuSnL OF freight.
Both Sides of the Controversy Fully
i Set Forth.
THE BUSINESS MEMS ASSOCIATION wIS AN
IMPORTANT PoINT.
i The determinations INDUCED in by
various lines of railroads, viz: The Chi
cago, st. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha,
the Chicago, Milwaukee & st. Paul, and
the Chicago q Northwestern in the car
rying of freight to various points within
the State of Minnesota, induced the
Business Mems Association and the
Manufacturers and Jobbers' Union of
Mankato to enter formal complaint with
the Railroad and Warehouse Commits
sioners. The complaint in this case was
filed with the commission on the End
day of June last, and on the 18th of said
month notice was issued by the Commits
sion to each of said companies, and, to-
gether with copy of said complaint,
duly served upon them requiring them
severally to forthwith correct and re-
move the causes of complaint charged
against them, or that in default thereof
they show cause before the Commission
on the 28th day of the same month why
the Commission should not order and
direct that the cause complained of
should not be removed or modified as
to them might seem Just and reasonable.
The Commission makes the following
report:
The first specific charge made in the
complaint is as follows: Section 2 of
the present law prohibits unequal and
unreasonable charges, and we hold that
under the existing state of affairs this
section has been, and is, violated on the
part of all railroads entering this city, as
will be shown by the accompanying
statements. Section of said act is be-
ing violated by the c.. st. p, M. & o.
R'y. as is evidenced by their published
tariffs of date April 9Th, which shows
that at that date their charges from Du-
luth to st. Paul, distance of III miles,
were as follows:
Glass, 10 s. 8
As IS IS 20 IS
While at the same time
their tariff from Duluth
to Mankato, a distance of
263 miles was -. IS rs IS IS 30
The distance being so per
cent greater the rate
should have been 20 Man
kato. .................-...7 2lz seq 37h 30 2S5z
And among the causes complained of
lis the following: "We further aliege
the yiolation-of section Son the part of
the c., st. p, M. & o. and the c., M. &
st. p. Companies in that they carry
freight from st. Paul to various stations
on their roads at less rates than provided
by them in their distance tariffs, as pub
lished by them in compliance with this
section"
To these charges the Chicago, st. Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Company replied
in substance that:
'The company deny that section of
the act referred to in said complaint is
now being, or ever has been, violated by
this company, as stated in said complaint;
that while it is substantially true, as
Duluth, Mimi. and st. Paul, Mimi, on
the one hand, and Duluth and Mankato
on the other, differ in the rate per ton
per mile, the latter being higher, yet,
| the transportation between the several
places above named is Interstate trans
| portation, under the sole regulation and
control of the government of the United
| States; and Is not in any manner subject
to the regulation or control of the State
of Minnesota, or its executive officers.
That of the lines IF railway of this COM
pany between st. Paul and Duluth, only
about twenty COY miles is in this State,
and for about one hundred and fifty
miles in the State of Wisconsin; that the
said line of railway connects at the town
of Superior, in said State, with the rail-
way line of the Superior Short Line Rail-
way Company, a corporation OF said last
named State, whose line of railroad, be-
| ing wholly within the State of Wiscon-
i sin, extends from such connection; to
| the northern boundary line of said State,
where it connects with the line of rail-
road of the Superior Short Line Railway
| Company of Minnesota, a corporation of
the State of Minnesota, which last named
line, extends from such connection to
and into, the said city of Duluth.
i That the two last named lines of rail-
road are temporarily operated by this
company, and now partly make up the
through line of this company between
st. Paul and Duluth. That the railroad
lines aforesaid, as well in the city of SUI
perior as in Duluth, extend to docks and
warehouses situated upon the navigable
waters of Lake Superior, where property
is delivered to and received from steam
ers and vessels, navigating the great
lakes; that such property is transported
by this company to and from its several
stations, in the States of Wisconsin,
i Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and the ter
ritory of Dakota as well as delivered to
and received from its connecting lines of
railroad in all of said States for further
transportation; that in the usual course
of business, loaded cars collected from
the several yards, docks, warehouses
and side tracks in Duluth and Superior,
are made into trans and hauled to
Spooner, station In Wisconsin, where
several branch lines of this company in
tersect, where they are again separated
into trains, for different portions of this
company's lines including st. Paul, to
which station all cars consigned to Min
nesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Dakota, are
sent That at st. Paul, trains are again
made up for further transportation, as
above stated, to all stations on this COM
pany's lines, including Mankato; the
company respectfully insists that all such
business is Interstate business, and that
this Hon. Board has no jurisdiction over
the matters in that behalf stated in said
complaint"
! The Chicago, st. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha and the Chicago, Milwaukee &
st. Paul Companies admit the facts en-
braced in the charge herein above set
: forth demurring to the same, and claim
that such facts constitute no violation of
section of the railway act.
The hearing of the case was postponed
for the convenience of one of the de-
PENDANTS to the l4th day Of July, at
which time ittook place, pursuant to adj
journment. None of the defendants APP
peared at the hearing, except the Chi
cago, st. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha
Company, which appeared by Mr.. f. B.
Clark, its General Traffic Manager, and
by Mr.. ]. II. Howe, the attorney for the
company In this decision only the
question or issue raised by the answer of
the Chicago, st. Paul, Minneapolis 4
Omaha Company to the charge in the
{ complaint that the company is guilty Of
violation of section seven of the State
railroad law, win be determined; the